Select Committee on European Scrutiny Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the delegation of the UK Independence Party in the EU-Assembly

SIGNIFICANT PROPOSALS IN APS 2008 WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SUPERSIDIARITY, DISPROPORTIONATENESS AND TURBIDITY-OF-INTENT

Executive Summary

  The APS consists of three sections. In the first, "1. A Consistent Course", the Commission introduces its disturbing strategy for 2008 and the misleading terms (eg "Europe", "EU-citizens", "institutional settlement" etc) upon which this strategy, and much of the EUs raison d'etre, are based.

  In "2. Priority Actions in 2008", policy-proposals are listed under seven headings: "2.1 Cross-cutting Priorities" enlists "tackling climate change", as a way of extending the EU's powers, in Europe and across the world, and proposes to regionalise "the Lisbon Strategy", as a means of "perforating" the remaining sovereignty of the nation-states, while "a common policy on asylum and migration" seeks to abolish nations' control of their frontiers.

  "2.2 Prosperity" is about interfering in "urban transport" and gaining control of merchant-shipping; working towards direction of education, through "lifelong learning" and "active citizenship"; taking over research through a "European Research Centre"; hypocritically posing as a friend to small business; further intruding into "financial services and intellectual property rights", abolishing legitimate and necessary "forms of State Aid" and encroaching on tax-systems with "a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base".

  "2.3 Solidarity" vaunts the implementation of the appalling REACh-regulation; proposes, without apology, to reform the disastrous CFP; to extend damaging "non-discrimination" legislation from the work-place to society at large; to prepare a fund (EGAF) to dampen rebellion following the job-losses which EU-policies will cause; to drag back parts of the failed "constitution" ("fundamental rights" and "consolidation of consular services"); to promote a skewed vision of "multilingualism" and to produce propaganda in favour of "active European citizenship".

  "2.4 Security and Freedom" uses "terrorism and organised crime" to spread EU-influence, over the police and the judiciary, to set up a "central database of fingerprints" and to combat "radicalisation", which could include suppressing opposition to the EU; "civil protection", which involves the deployment of EU-paramilitaries, is thrown in with enforcing "EU standards on food safety", which is even more oppressive, but less emotive; "disaster prevention" is another area where EU-forces might mount a creeping invasion; a "recommendation on patient safety" and "modernising legislation on medical devices" would effectively infringe upon national responsibility for "Services of General Interest"; a decision on GMO's seems to be being discreetly postponed; however, the attack on folk-remedies, high-dose vitamins etc (to the benefit of the pharmaceuticals lobby) continues;

  "2.5 Europe as a World Partner" evokes Orwell's vision of a "Eurasia", slyly taking power through apparently benign, but essentially spurious, "environmental" and "humanitarian" initiatives; attempting to create its own energy-empire, further extend its borders, encourage the formation of parallel, supra-national entities, impose its predatory trade-policy through the WTO, deploy "EU-forces" in Africa and South Asia, and use a limited form of "democratisation" (where convenient) to undermine opponent-regimes.

  "2.6 Better Regulation ..." pretends to be reducing the EU's crippling "regulatory burden"; and

  "2.7 Improving Communication... " promises to increase the EU's propaganda-budget.

  "3. General Framework For Human And Financial Resources For 2008" consists of tentative and fragmentary predictions for changes to parts of existing budgets, purporting to show that all the above initiatives will cost very little. This section is not considered in further detail in this submission.

Evidence

  (bold numbering as in APS 2008, Communication from the Commission etc, Brussels 21 February 2007, COM(2007) 65 final)

1.  "A Consistent Course"

  No-one could accuse the EU-Commission, or the EU-project generally, of inconsistency. The policies of the EU-institutions are curiously semper eadem, like those of the Vatican, or many-another non-democratic organisation. Whatever the people they refer to as their "citizens" may think about their policies—and even if these policies are rejected in national referendums—those institutions dismiss all objections, as "arising from incomprehension", and grind inexorably on.

  2.  There is, indeed, inconsistency, between what the institutions say and what they do—and this point will be made with reference to several topics below—but, in what they do, never: "wider and deeper", ad infinitum, about sums it up, and nothing but abolition will divert them a hair's breadth from their autocratic, "consistent course".

  3.   "The EU is pushing forward," the Commission writes, "with a wide range of ambitious policies, showing our citizens how the European dimension is essential to realising their aspirations in today's world."

  4.  "Our citizens" are, in fact, the nationals of the adherent states, and "European" refers only to this odd group of institutions—not to the continent—but endless repetition seems to have convinced many that there is such a thing as EU-citizenship and that, somehow, the EU is Europe. Creating these impressions is, of course, part of the process of creating the corresponding realities, and the institutions use this method a lot: "consistency in inconsistency", one might say.

  5.   "2008 will clearly be an important year for the debate on the future of Europe," the Commission goes on, "a constructive institutional settlement would send a positive signal before the next European elections."

  6.  This "constructive institutional settlement" is nothing other than the essential elements of the rejected Constitutional Treaty, re-packaged—or, perhaps, "camouflaged" would be a better word—so as to avoid being put to referendums. The most essential of all these elements is "legal personality"-for-the-EU; the element, which would allow the institutions to become a sovereign government. Unfortunately for the Commission, the more the vast, unreadable Treaty is boiled down, the more conspicuous its most essential element becomes. Other references to the Constitutional Treaty and "legal personality" will follow in their turn.

2.  "Part I: Priority Actions in 2008"

  2.1  "Cross-cutting Priorities"

  7.  It is not clear how the items in this section ("climate-change", energy-supply, "the Lisbon Strategy" and "migration") are any more "cross-cutting" than topics in several other sections (eg "prosperity", "solidarity" or "better regulation") unless "cross-cutting" is being used to mean "most important".

  8.  The Commission goes on to say, "Tackling climate change has moved to the forefront and will be an integral part of the Commission's priorities in 2008 to secure sustainable prosperity for Europe."

  9.  Socio-economic engineering will be possible on an undreamed-of scale (this Commissarial exponent of anthropogenic climate-change hopes) if only most people can be persuaded that the world will be destroyed by any failure, on their part, to abide by the dictates—as interpreted by the Commission—of "the precautionary principle".

  10.   "2008 will be a crucial year for taking forward the Energy and Climate Change Package adopted by the Commission in early 2007: major actions should include work towards the creation of a European gas network and electricity grid, further steps to promote energy efficiency and sustainable energy, a revision of the EU oil stocks system to enhance energy solidarity between the Member States initiatives to follow up the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and enforcement of the competition and internal market rules in the energy sector."

  11.  If this sentence is as inelegantly structured as the thinking behind it, then the maintenance-cuts, illicit power-transfers and blackouts, on both seaboards of North America, will soon be reproduced in the Commission's "Member States". Whoever heard of knocking the flotation-chambers of a ship's hull into one, floodable cavity? What about "all your eggs in one basket"? Other things being equal, an array of discrete systems is as many times more secure (than one large one) as the number of components it consists of; but, ever consistent, the Commission can proceed only by lumping everything together, because only thus can everything be completely, and centrally, directed. Even the likes of the current HMG are likely to baulk at some of it.

  12.   "The EU should use its leadership to step up the international pressure for global change: key to this is the Global Climate Policy Alliance, which aims to engage developing countries on climate change, with a view to broadening participation in the post-2012 international climate change regime."

  13.  It is not at all clear what this "Global Climate Policy Alliance" is. The nearest match achieved by Google is as follows.

    Gender Equality and Climate Change Policy Climate Alliance—Klima-Bündnis—Alianza del Clima e.V. Climate Alliance of European Cities with Indigenous Rainforest Peoples www.climatealliance.org

    funded by the European Commission, DG EMPL, co-funded by the Ministry for Family, Youth, Women and Elderly, Germany

    Well ... could be!

  14.  More importantly—and in keeping with its real intent—the first part of this sentence should be reversed. It ought to read: "The EU should use the international pressure for global change to step up its leadership."

  15.   "In addition, 2008 will see the first results of a further effort to implement the Lisbon Strategy at regional level through new European cohesion policy programmes, and new rural development policy programmes, for all EU Member States to be adopted in 2007."

  16.  This, presumably, means that the "Lisbon Strategy" has not been implemented at regional level yet, but that, in a "further effort", it soon will be, and tax-payers' money will flow anew to "regional" bodies, thus by-passing, and eroding, the authority of national governments. How often the EU-institutions express their desire to become transparent! Perhaps they're getting there, in a way, after all! (see also 43 and 44)

  17.   "In 2008 the Commission will propose further steps towards a common policy on migration and measures to achieve a Common European Asylum System by 2010," and, "In 2008, the External Borders Agency will be further developed and Member States will be supported in tackling illegal migration through a European surveillance system."

  18.  If "Member States" had not stopped controlling their own borders, the problem of excessive and unsuitable immigration would never have arisen (and it could now be solved, by the resumption of border-controls) despite the impoverishment caused, in the Third World, by EU trade-policies, predatory IMF-requirements and the occasional horrific attack by "the international community". How convenient that the pitiable influx now appears to be uncontrollable, unless the EU rides to the rescue with its spine-chilling "Common European Asylum System", "External Borders Agency" and "European surveillance system"! Full marks from Machievelli! (Please see also 72(iii))

  2.2  "Prosperity"

  19.   "To reduce the negative impact of the transport sector on the environment, the Commission will propose an Action Plan on Urban Transport, a White Paper to promote the competitiveness and efficiency of maritime transport due to better inclusion of short sea shipping in the logistic chain, and a legislative proposal to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from aviation."

  20.  While posing, Canute-like, as administrator of the world's weather systems, the Commission pays lip-service to the (common market) "competitiveness and efficiency", which provided its only popular mandate in Britain (1975) Both postures, it is now clear, are essentially excuses for grabbing power from democratic institutions. The EU does not work, either economically or environmentally, and should not be allowed to continue gobbling up national responsibilities, as though it did.

  21  "Lifelong learning continues to be a crucial element of the Lisbon strategy: it is central to competitiveness and employability but also promotes personal development, active citizenship and social inclusion"

  22.  So, naturally, the EU should be allowed to make further inroads into education—one of the last areas over which it lacks complete authority—in order, no doubt, to show "our citizens how the European dimension is essential to realising their aspirations in today's world"! (see section 1. and

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l—077/l—07720070316en13541361

ie COMMISSION

TITLE 15 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE

CHAPTER 15 06 — FOSTERING EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

Chapter 15 06 — Total Commitments (2007) € 36 685 672

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l—077/l—07720070316en13501353.pdf

ie COMMISSION

TITLE 15 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE

CHAPTER 15 05 — ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF YOUTH AND SPORTS

Chapter 15 05 — Total Commitments (2006) € 111 965 000)

  23.   "From 2008 the European Research Centre (ERC) will be supported by an executive agency to allow it to play its full role as a pan-European funding agency for frontier research."

  24.  International institutions, like many co-operative efforts, can be highly beneficial, but cease to be so, if they become coercive powers in their own right. No-one would object to a genuinely European research-centre, but the ERC is an EU-institution, designed to suck the life-blood out of national research-programmes, not to nurture and enhance them.

  25.   "Based on the results of the Single Market Review, which will be presented in 2007, the Commission will bring forward legislative proposals to allow citizens and companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to benefit fully from the internal market."

  26.  While all the policies of the EU favour big business—which has the resources to cope with hyper-regulation, with large, uniform registration-fees, international distances and appeals to the courts, and often functions as an acknowledged "economic partner" of the Commission, in whose secret committees it shapes policies advantageous to itself—the EU prates, just as consistently—but ineffectually—about helping small business. This is because the EU is by no means secure in its "consistent course", and cannot afford to alienate a sector as large as small business, while its inhabitants still have meaningful votes. Statements inconsistent with actions are therefore required.

  27.   "Initiatives may for example include proposals in the areas of financial services or intellectual property rights."

  28.  These are initiatives beloved of multi-national, big business—not of "citizens" or small business. The Commission's plans for enforcing a "Community Patent" (which already allows software-patents) for example, and criminal penalties for infringement (intentional or otherwise) of designs and copyright, are a power-grab, not only on its own behalf, but also on behalf of its large "economic partners". The failure-rate of smaller businesses will continue to rise, under this onslaught, and the innovative software-base, which consists almost entirely of small businesses, could be eliminated completely.

  29.  Also in this paragraph: "Enforcement activities... targeting the most harmful anti-competitive practices and forms of State Aid..." (Perish the thought that an elected government should be able to preserve essential, national industries, which, once destroyed, it might not be able to re-build!) and "a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)" which, like initiatives in education, worms its way closer to control of one of the last vestiges of independent, national (democratic) existence—in this case, the tax-system.

  2.3  "Solidarity"

  30.   "The implementation of the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation is a key test to show Europe's capacity to enhance the competitiveness of European industry while improving the health and environment for European citizens."

  31.  This huge, appalling regulation—which will simply become law as a statutory instrument—is a charter for large firms to sweep thousands of smaller rivals from the market place. In many cases, such smaller firms—dealing, for example in small, but essential, quantities of large numbers of rare metals or highly active substances—are irreplaceable, because the expense of REACh-compliance, substance-by-substance, is greater than the foreseeable profit, and because even large firms will then find it difficult to set up dedicated departments, and pay research- and registration-fees, in the attempt to fill the gap, which the loss of so much expertise will leave, and for what?

  32.  Above all, the REACh is a vast exercise in bureaucracy, which, besides laming wide swaths of industry (with expensive, negative—ie "my substance is not dangerous"—reporting-duties) will do nothing to improve the positive controls provided by national governments today. Rather, by demanding the registration of all substances, it will distract attention from genuinely risky ones, and jeopardise the economy to such an extent that genuine environmental and conservational projects will have to be abandoned as too costly. This is the long shadow of the Commission's Canute-pose. What kind of society does it think it's creating?

  33.   "As regards the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) the Commission will come forward with a major recast of the control framework with a view to strengthening enforcement across the Union."

  34.  Quite apart from the fact that British fisherman now have access to only 18% of catch in Britain's territorial waters, that the fleet is a ghost of what it was, livelihoods and communities have disappeared and an important, independent food-source has thus been damaged and sequestered... the concern here is that the CFP has been an act of environmental vandalism almost beyond belief. For decades, the CFP—rather than prescribing days-at-sea, per area, per vessel—has demanded that excess catch be thrown back into the sea as "discards". The Commission has insisted on this and—despite declining fish-stocks—consistently refused to recognise that the Faroes, Norway and Canada, which all operate days-at-sea policies, also continue to possess stable fish-populations. However, this year, without apology, the Commission has announced that its "discards" policy is to be replaced by a days-at-sea policy. That seems to be a part of what the above statement means. Perhaps the Commission is now satisfied that the British fleet has declined to the point of no return.

  35.   "The Commission will, in particular, propose new initiatives designed to prevent and combat discrimination outside the labour market—based on gender, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation and to enhance a better reconciliation between family and professional life."

  36.  This means that the un-elected Commission will lay down the same criminal codes of courtesy and morality, in every walk of life, for 27 different countries. These codes, furthermore—and as we have seen from anticipatory versions already introduced—do not improve courtesy or morality, but provoke spurious victim-hood, and justifiable resentment, and provide the means for favoured political pressure-groups to impose their views on everyone else. Insult and injury have never been better dealt with better than in English Common Law, which considers each case on its merits. The insertion of a list of special grounds, upon which especially people may not be insulted or injured, is superfluous and, in itself, unfair discrimination.

  37.   "Proposals to promote social solidarity will include possible interventions by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) set up to complement the efforts of Member States to support the efforts of workers made redundant due to market opening to find and retain new jobs" and "The Commission will present new proposals on how to ensure the adaptability and flexibility of the European labour market while ensuring a high degree of social protection ("flexicurity")"

  38.  Globalisation undoubtedly has much to answer for, without being made a scapegoat for the results of the Commission's frightful politico-socio-economic experiment, but, as these results bite, many will suffer, and the flames of rebellion (ie lack of "social solidarity") will have to be sprayed with cash. This will provide new opportunities for the coercion and corruption, for which the EU's funding-procedures are justly notorious.

  In addition, as several trade-union leaders have observed, the Commission's "flexicurity" requires a lot of "flexi" without providing much "curity". This, above all, is why the Commission considers EGAF to be a prudent provision.

  39.   "To promote and protect fundamental rights and European citizenship, the Commission will propose further measures for the consular protection of EU citizens travelling outside the Union."

  40.  The references to "fundamental rights" and "European citizenship", and the implication of amalgamated consulates (which are explicitly mentioned in other Commission-documents, eg the "Legislative and Work Programme 2007") are all escapees from the wreck of the Constitutional Treaty. However, as mentioned in 1., the only important provision in that Treaty is "legal personality" for the EU. Once the EU has that, it can, for example, accredit ambassadors, open consulates, sit on the UN Security Council, declare war and impose every other provision of the Treaty, including the Charter of Fundamental (positive) Rights, thus abolishing any right, which it has not codified, and, in addition, awarding itself the power to suspend even these codified rights, "if necessary".

  41.   "The Commission will launch new initiatives together with the Member States to promote multilingualism, which reflects the cultural and linguistic diversity of the EU and contributes to its prosperity."

  42.  This is another possible avenue for intrusion into child-education, undercover of promoting a common-market, and employing a euphemism to indicate—in defiance of the exigencies of world-trade—that only the languages of EU-adherent territories are to be promoted.

  43.   "Finally, the Commission will implement the 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in support of cultural and linguistic diversity and promoting active European citizenship."

  44.  The efforts of EU-, and EU-supported (especially German) bodies, in this area, have so far been directed, most significantly, at promoting minority languages, within sovereign nations, in order to undermine the integrity and identity, of those nations, and to impair the universal communication, within those nations, which a common language confers, and which is essential to democracy. Regarding "European citizenship", please see 4, 21, 22, 39 and 40.

  45.   "Solidarity: key actions envisaged for 2008

        "Justice and Home Affairs

        "Legislative proposal in the field of successions and wills"

  46.  This is one of the items, not mentioned in the text, which appears in the summary-table, and which clearly proposes to encroach on legal matters, which are not part of the responsibilities governments have signed away.

  2.4  "Security and Freedom"

  47.   "The Hague Programme (2005-09) remains the framework for strengthening cooperation to promote freedom, security and justice in the EU: further actions will be taken forward to fight organised crime and terrorism, including measures to facilitate the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities and preventive measures targeting radicalisation."

  48.  The summary-table for "Solidarity: key actions etc.", referred to in 45, clearly mentions "Justice and Home Affairs", and yet, here, the new name for the second pillar ("Freedom, Security and Justice") is used instead.

  The Hague Programme http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/hague-programme-jha-programme-2005-10/article-130657 exploits convenient terrorist-outrages to erode the pillar-structure of the Treaties, without proper process, agreement or ratification. This is the kind of "freedom, security and justice", which the EU can be relied upon to provide.

  49.  Particularly worrying are the references to information-exchange and "targeting radicalisation", which mean, respectively, the central accumulation of data on all the inhabitants of EU-territories (see also 53, below) and state-sponsored, political manipulation.

  50.  Considering that the EU's institutions always label persons, or parties, opposed to the EU, as "extremists", "far-right", "far-left", "xenophobic", "hard-liners" or "ultra-nationalist", it is easy to see how measures targeting Muslim radicalisation (the invited assumption) will be used to deprive legitimate opponents of their democratic rights, or to condone such deprivation where it already exists. In Belgium, for example, the country's largest party, the anti-EU Vlaams Blok, was proscribed, and its successor, Vlaams Belang, is routinely denied statutory media-access and officially derided, ironically enough, as "undemocratic".

  51.   "The Commission will also propose further measures to promote the safety and health of EU citizens, including measures to build on current cooperation in civil protection and efforts to ensure and enforce EU standards on food safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health."

  52.  Amid a plethora of health's and safety's—as though they were not oppressive enough in themselves—lurks this reference to building on "current cooperation in civil protection", which refers to forming EU-forces for emergency-use in any EU-territory. These forces already exist. They are based at Vincenza, in Italy. They have a rather spine-chilling web-site: http://www.eurogendfor.org/ Even more hair-raising is the report of the Seville Conference on the "European Security and Defence Policy" http://www.stimson.org/fopo/pdf/novosseloffpresentationesdp.pdf

  53.   "Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Fighting Organised Crime and Terrorism.

        "Implementing a centralised database of fingerprints.

  54.  Please see 49, above. Note also that the summary-table for "Security and Freedom" features many interesting and important points not referred to in the corresponding text. How like the Commission to avoid expanding upon subjects (eg policing, health-services and GMO's) most likely to prove controversial!

  55.   "Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Fighting Organised Crime and Terrorism.

        "Strengthening the cooperation between Member States through EUROJUST in investigating and prosecuting serious cross-border and organised crime."

  56.  Unless the wording here is merely sloppy (and this cannot be ruled out) it would appear that co-operation in EUROJUST can be extended to "organised crime", whether this "organised crime" is "cross-border" or not. This, in turn, requires a definition of "organised crime", which might be difficult to formulate, unless any co-ordination between individuals, for the purpose of committing a criminal offence, is to be regarded as "organised".

  57.   Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Civil Protection

        "Strengthening the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and developing an integrated strategy on disaster prevention for disasters occurring within the EU or in countries participating in the mechanism"

  58.  This seems to picture the EU as a kind of King Canute, once again ("prevention for disasters occurring") but it has more to do with gradual invasion, as portrayed in the wonderful "Yes, Minister!", where Sir Humphrey Appleby asks Rt Hon Jim Hacker at what point he would use "the bomb", during an invasion of West Berlin by the Democratic Republic:

    "The East-Germans send a fleet of fire-engines to help the West Berlin fire-brigade tackle a major conflagration... do you use the bomb?" asks Sir Humphrey.

    "Of course not!" retorts Jim.

    "Then they send police to help quell looting and rioting... do you use the bomb?" Appleby persists... and so on... eventually West Berlin is occupied by East German troops, and Mr Hacker's deterrent was never of any use to him. This shows the effectiveness of the EU's softly-softly method, which also (by the way) would eventually allow it to acquire "the bomb", from Britain and France.

  The answer to Sir Humphrey's "bomb-question"—and essential to the effectiveness of any military deterrent—is not to let the "fire-brigade" cross the border in the first place; and, likewise, to reject Commission-proposals of this sort.

  59.  Also (in 57) it is not entirely clear whether "the countries participating in the mechanism" excludes EU-territories. That is, will some EU-territories be able to opt out, or will opting-out only be possible for other "countries"?

  60.   Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Health and Safety.

        "Recommendation on patient safety and the quality of health services."

  61.  The power of "recommendations", from the Commission, should not be underestimated. They can throw whole business-sectors into frenzies of anticipatory compliance—as occurred recently with copyright-societies, after a recommendation on a "European Copyright System"—but, in this case, the Commission is looming over a vast service-industry, which it dearly desires to prise from the control of democratic government and make into an EU-regulated, multi-national big-business.

  62.   "Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Health and Safety.

        "Developing a legal framework for the risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of genetically modified food and feed."

  63.  The Commission is under pressure from American governments, the WTO and Bio-tech companies, on the one hand, and opponents of GMO's (+ most of the population) on the other, to make up its mind on this subject. The companies may well already be "economic partners" of the Commission—there is no way of knowing—while many of the opponents are also among the most vociferous advocates of the Commission's stance on anthropogenic climate-change. What a position for a would-be super-power to be in! The answer is to wait until it is a super-power, whereupon the anti-GMO-ists (+ the rest of the population) will have to lump it. The item in 62 appears to be a delaying tactic.

  64.   Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Health and Safety.

        "Review of the legal framework on pharmaceuticals."

  65.  This is another thorny problem. On the one hand the big pharmaceutical companies, which are almost certainly "economic partners"; on the other, many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people, who treasure their herbal and mineral remedies, high-dose vitamins etc. How do you implement the outcome of your stakeholder-consultation (ie the policy recommended by the "economic partners")? In this case, however, the Commission has already plumped—and plumped inevitably for big business—alienating a significant minority of pro-EU parties' supporters, and driving their folk-remedies underground.

  66.   Security and Freedom: key actions envisaged for 2008

        Health and Safety.

        "Modernising of the legislation for medical devices, to improve patient safety while ensuring a clear regulatory environment."

  67.  "Services of General Interest" (SGI's) are another battleground, where the Commission's plan for the "withering away of the [nation-] state", in an environment dominated by global corporations, is opposed by the very labour-unions and welfare-organisations, who make up the balance of the Commission's "social and economic partnership". In the area of health, in particular, the clash between the "social", and the "economic", components of this partnership, actually led to the exception of SGI's—"Services of General Economic Interest" (SGEI's) and "Services of General Non-Economic Interest" (SGNEI's)—from the "Services Directive", and "competence" to define, and regulate, them being left to the member-governments! The Commission must therefore content itself, spider-like, with looping thread after inconspicuous thread, of which this is one of many, around health-service provision.

  2.5  "Europe as a World Partner" (Towards Orwell's Eurasia and global Big-Brotherdom—this title actually means, "Europe as a World Power"!)

  68.   "Europe must continue its efforts to act with a strong and united voice in the world, based on our common values and objectives, in full coherence with our internal policies, and making full use of all the assets and policies at its disposal to defend the Union's interests."

  69.  "To act with a... voice", is a strangely mixed metaphor, implying a desire, not just to speak (as one does, with a voice) but to avoid mentioning force (with which—when "strong and united"—one acts) Also, Europe's appurtenances start of as "its" (efforts) then switch to "our" (common values, objectives, internal policies) then back to "its" (disposal) and end up as "the Union's" (interests) Even allowing for the poor standard of literacy prevalent in EU-institutions, such oddities neatly betray the schizophrenic, or disingenuous, nature of the EU-construct.

  70.   "Core policies like addressing climate change and biodiversity, demographic change and migration, terrorism and organised crime, or energy needs can only be tackled in the global context."

  71.  Here, the writer—under the influence of the list of problems, which these "core policies" are supposed to be "addressing"—forgets that the subject of the sentence is "core policies" (which are implemented, or pursued, not "tackled") Would any democratic, European government set out its "core policies" in so off-hand a manner? Perhaps, on the other hand, these are not "core policies" at all, or are not what they appear to be.

  72.  Indeed, such irritating inconsistencies betoken a deeper malaise, which is a fundamental mendacity and hypocrisy:

    (i)  all human activity accounts for considerably less than 10% of global CO2 production, so that—even if the alleged slight increase in atmospheric CO2 were instrumental in raising temperature (which seems doubtful)—there would still be no climatological justification for the socio-economic revolution, or arrogation of powers, which—on the grounds of excessive, anthropogenic CO2 alone—supra-national institutions, like the EU, are attempting.

    (ii)   "Core policies like addressing  ... biodiversity" is another slovenly, non-sensical expression. These "policies" are supposed to be "addressing [loss of] biodiversity", although they should actually be said to be attempting to preserve existing biodiversity, because it is by no means demonstrable that biodiversity, in general, is being lost. The biosphere evolves continuously, constantly producing new species. No-one knows, for example, how many species there now are in genera like Rubus (brambles) or Taraxacum (dandelions) because every generation of such genera produces hundreds more. This "core policy" of the Commission is thus really about preserving certain existing species for aesthetic, academic or propaganda reasons. It is not an imperative for human survival, let alone a good excuse for abolishing or emasculating democracy, which is what it is mainly intended to achieve. Besides, if we really want to preserve this, or that, endangered ecosystem, we should remember that local and national ownership of conservation projects is essential to their success, which can only be impaired by the intrusion of some remote autocracy.

    (iii)   "Core policies like addressing... demographic change"—if this does refer specifically to the ageing of populations—would be worth looking at, but what are they? The only policies the Commission admits to, in this area, are euthanasia, "work-life balance", parental leave and a huge, inassimilable influx of immigrants (please see also 18) With the exception of immigration, which requires a complete re-casting of present, predatory trade-policy, these are not "core policies", which "can only be tackled in the global context", and they do not need the EU for—nor can they usefully involve a structure like the EU in—their implementation.

    (iv)   "Core policies like addressing... terrorism" should also be a misnomer, but is it? When we consider the carnage wrought by "our" troops in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, it must be admitted that, in EU-territories, terrorism is a minor matter. For "addressing" it to become a "core policy", that policy has to be about something connected with terrorism, rather than about terrorism itself. This "something" can only be the fear of terrorism and the remarkable opportunity it provides for the assumption of sweeping powers. It is true that re-casting "our" predatory trade-, and invasion-, policies—which are the principle motivation for terrorism—does have to "be tackled in the global context", but the EU is an intentional obstruction to this. The nations of Europe should take back their seats at the WTO.

    (v)  Is it true that "core policies like addressing... organised crime... can only be tackled in the global context"? On the contrary, the removal of frontiers, the imposition of a single currency, the progressive loss of patriotic policing and the trivialisation of capital offences—all EU-policies—have made EU-territories a play-ground for criminal syndicates. An insane dedication to opening large gambling-resorts can only make matters worse. If "addressing... organised crime" is a "core policy" of the EU, then this policy cannot be directed at suppressing or eradicating organised crime, and to allow it to promulgate this policy, "in the global context", would be extremely imprudent.

    (vi)   "Core policies like addressing... energy needs can only be tackled in the global context." Like policy on "migration" and "terrorism"—but unlike policy on the other four subjects mentioned in 70—policy on energy-supply does frequently require an international dimension. It does not, however, require, or benefit from, a supranational dimension, and, as with immigration and terrorism, it is quite clear that the EU is a barrier, not a gateway, to a useful international dimension. While purporting to represent its member-governments, at the WTO, or in negotiations with Russia or Algeria, the EU essentially represents itself or, at best, a few of its most influential supporters. It uses its position primarily to augment its own role. This is human nature. Indeed, it is almost the only thing, about the EU, which does appear to be human. The remedy for human nature in government is democracy. The EU cannot support meaningful democracy. Only states with a common language can do this. The EU must be abolished.

  73.   "Accession negotiations will be pursued on the basis of the renewed consensus on enlargement and the enhanced rules governing the accession process agreed at the December 2006 European Council."

  74.  This would appear to contradict the argument, put by many apologists for the Constitutional Treaty, that this Treaty is necessary for further "enlargement". On the other hand, what was agreed at Brussels may have been more extensive than was announced. If so, then 73 contains two elements—"enlargement" and the "constitution"—on which the eurocracy and "citizens" are implacably at odds.

  75.   ("...future status settlement for Kosovo.") "A positive outcome is also key to a significant improvement in Serbia's progress on its path to the EU."

  76.  "A positive outcome" means cutting Serbia down to the size of an EU-province, by completing the process of destroying the Yugoslav EU-rival. The Serbs have been, and still are being, hunted out of Kosovo, by surrogates of the "international community", and Kosovo's considerable mineral-wealth has been seized by multi-national companies. Nowhere, until this process began, was "humanitarian intervention" by the "international community", quite so blatantly nothing of the sort.

  77.   "Work to develop closer political and economic ties with partners around the world—including Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Korea, China, India, ASEAN and Latin America—should be intensified" and "The transatlantic partnership should be strengthened and constantly adapted to the evolution of common challenges, reflecting ... our responsibility for contributing to an international environment conducive to peace, security, prosperity and sustainable development."

  78.  "Eurasia", "Eastasia" and "Oceania" were the three mega-states of Orwell's "1984". Their germs may be glimpsed in the EU, ASEAN and FTAA of today, as may the "continuous war", which, according to Orwell, enabled the mega-states' elites to keep their "citizens" in sustainable subjection. The mega-states are not yet formed, however, and the "continuous war"—ostensibly against a foe begotten by the CIA and (Pakistani) ISIS in Baluchistan (and since then inflated enormously in reaction to the aggression of the "international community")—is still limited to mopping up pockets of resistance to globalism. It is not too late to restore democracy, but time is getting short. "Minipeace", it will be recalled, was Oceania's Ministry of War.

  79.   "The Union is working hard to ensure the successful completion and implementation of the Doha Development Round of world trade talks."

  80.  If those who decry the EU's world-trade policy—as "neo-colonialism", "capitalist imperialism" and an assault upon democratic sovereignty in the Third World—were to look at the whole picture, they would see that the "citizens" of the "neo-colonial" power, though currently prosperous, are destined to be victims of this policy just as much as the Third World's poor are now. As the mega-state comes into being, its prosperous inhabitants become slaves through disenfranchisement, just as the world's poor are being disenfranchised, or being prevented from attaining enfranchisement. At that point, when democracy has been consigned to history, living standards can, and will, be equalised by decree. It might be argued that the poor would benefit. At least they would become slaves with a supportable standard of living; but would they not be better off as nationals of democratic, economically-developed states? As for the EU's "citizens", they lose whichever way you look at it.

  81.   "The EU will reinforce its institutional relations with Africa at all levels and especially with the African Union (AU)" and "It should also strive for synergies with the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA's) which will start being implemented in 2008 and represent a cornerstone for the regional integration of ACP countries and their development in general."

  82.  Pseudo-representative umbrella-bodies are of the essence, which the EU-method is distilling, and which, because it consists of asymmetric consultation, always arrives at "consensus" very close to the major partner's position. An Africa/Caribbean/Pacific continuum of client statelets welded into umbrella-bodies and policed by EU-troops, would enable the continuing exploitation of its natural resources, while preventing the growth of any industries, independence or democracy, which might threaten the "international community's" global system. The predatory nature of EPA's has been widely criticised by humanitarians, who would never dream of abolishing the EU.

  83.   "Stabilisation and reconstruction efforts in the Middle East and South Asia will have to be continued and the Union's prevention, crisis reaction and peace building capacities should be further reinforced."

  84.  Having wrung its hands, and shed crocodile-tears, when, with enormous loss of life, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, the EU later joined in. At the time of the invasions, predictions, to the effect that this would happen, were dismissed by EU-apologists, intent, as they were, on exploiting anti-American feeling for their own ends. Who remembers that now?

  85.   "Electoral observation and the efficient implementation of other human rights and democratisation programmes will be important contributions to the promotion of our fundamental values outside the European Union."

  What are the "fundamental values" of an unaccountable, consultative autocracy? It would be superfluous to list them all, although "hypocrisy" must be emphasised. Suffice it to say that their "promotion" is served by the kind of "democratisation" it supports in economically weak countries, where the population might be swayed towards EU-adhesion, or client-ship, and the rulers are against the idea.

  2.6  "Better Regulation—at the Heart of the Commission's Daily Work"

  86.   "2007 will see improvements to the system of impact assessment, the launch of an Action Programme to eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens arising from legislation at EU and Member State levels, and implementation of the updated simplification programme: realisation of these actions will be the core goal for 2008."

  87.   The "core goal"! During its term of office, this Commission has succeeded in repealing a few dozen, obsolete directives and regulations, while adding thousands of measures to its infamous acquis. A few "environmental" measures were delayed, after the rebuff of the French and Dutch referendums, but confidence soon returned to the operators of the regulatory sausage-machine, which now squirts out its enthusiasts' favourite schemes faster than ever. Indeed, far from being a fellowship of brotherly love, the EU is, above all, a regulation-machine. If it stopped churning out "administrative burdens", it would cease to exist.

  88.   "... the Commission will continue to push hard to deliver significant and demonstrable reductions in the administrative burdens faced by EU business."

  89.  Last year, Commissioner Verheugen—in an extraordinary outburst of candour—put the cost of the EU-regulatory burden at around €500 billion per annum. There is no way in which this huge figure can be prevented from growing—let alone be reduced—as long as the regulatory sausage-machine exists, any more than the EU is ever likely to become a favourable environment for smaller businesses or, indeed, a democracy.

  2.7  "Improving Communication and Communication Priorities for 2008"

  90.   "Communicating with citizens about European issues remains a crucial task for the European Commission in 2008" and "... the Commission will continue to pursue and strengthen its efforts to better communicating [sic] Europe in all policy areas."

  91.  The propaganda war is on. Unfortunately for the Commission, because it is institutionally alien to the peoples it hopes to make its "citizens"—and because it lives a lie and is essentially unwholesome—it is incapable of winning hearts and minds. It can only creep stealthily outward like a mould, creating an anaesthetic odour of inevitability and unchallengeableness. The member-governments' only hope of preserving the EU-structure, which gives them their treasured supranational status, heightened career-ladder and reduced responsibilities, is to keep quiet about it, in the time-honoured, Jean-Monnet manner, which has allowed the monster to grow to its present size. "To strengthen its efforts to better communicating Europe ..." somehow says it all.

  "3. Part II: GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR 2008"

  For brief comment, please see Executive Summary.

16 April 2007





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 31 July 2007